Obama Burning Constitution: Offensive or Free Speech?

One of the latest paintings by painter Jon McNaughton is sparking some controversy. The painting depicts President Obama burning the Constitution and is entitled "One Nation Under Socialism". Do you find the painting offensive, acceptable under the First Amendment, both or neither?

View attachment 401

Copyright: www.mcnaughton.art.com

 

Of course its acceptable under the First Admendment. Its still silly. Conservatives who want to ban flag burning are contradicting exactly what the flag itself stands for: freedom of speech. Silly conservaties just like to put partison politics before common sense. Its an age old story. Not being afraid to criticize doctrine isn't "socialism"...its just freethought.

 

Obama isn't burning the flag in the painting, he's burning the Constitution. The painter is making a political statement about Obama's perceived Socialist bent and his willingness to side-step constitutional authority. Offensive? You be the judge...

 

Keep trying. But please, come up with a specific case where Obama has violated the constitution...would be fun to discuss.

 

Looks to be well painted but I wonder if the use of such imagery might not comeback to haunt them at some stage?

 

ACLJ: President Obama Violates Constitution With "Recess" Appointments
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today President Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution by by-passing Congress and moving forward in making a number of appointments.

"This is a brazen, unprecedented power grab by President Obama," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "While the President is certainly permitted to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, these appointments clearly violate the Constitution because they have been made even though the Senate has not recessed. President Obama knows that. Instead of abiding by the Constitution, he's plunging forward - ignoring the separation of powers - in an arrogant and unconstitutional manner. We're examining all possible legal options concerning this issue."

You can read more about this issue in a blog post, Obama Appointments Shred the Constitution, posted here.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, is based inWashington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.

MEDIA CONTACTS:
For Print: Gene Kapp (757) 575-9520
For Broadcast: Chandler Epp or Todd Shearer (770) 813-0000

SOURCE American Center for Law and Justice
Back to top
RELATED LINKS
http://www.aclj.org

 

Ron Paul: Obama violated War Powers Resolution and U.S. Constitution​

​

• Posted on 06.29.11
• By Eric W. Dolan
• Categories: Featured, Nation

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said on CNN Wednesday that President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to militarily intervene in Libya.​

​

“You take an oath of office to obey the Constitution… the Constitution is very clear, you don’t go to war without a declaration,” he said. “I agree there is some confusion with the War Powers Resolution, because technically it legalized war rather than prevented war, so I don’t particularly like that bill.”​

​

The libertarian-leaning representative said Obama’s ongoing U.S. military operations in Libya violated the War Powers Resolution.​

​

“He can’t go to war by talking to the United Nations and NATO and refusing to talk to Congress,” Paul noted.​

​

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2...d-war-powers-resolution-and-u-s-constitution/​

 

Even Obama's 'Compromise' Is Unconstitutional, Critics Say

By Craig Bannister
February 10, 2012​

Even Pres. Obama’s alleged “compromise” on his contraception mandate is unconstitutional, a House Republican leader and the chairman of a public policy research center said today.
Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says Obama’s revised version of an ObamaCare mandate still violates the Constitution:
“This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs.”
“This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law.”
“The liberal Obama administration thinks its political goals trump the religious faith of American citizens. That isn’t right, fair, or constitutional.”
Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, agrees:
“Isn't the compromise just a big spin and an insult to churches, because it implies that they just want an 'out' to permit them to pretend that they aren't providing coverage they believe is immoral?

The HHS mandate is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. The compromise is, too.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/even-obamas-compromise-unconstitutional-critics-say

 

Scalise Says Obama Violates Constitution Over Czars

April 16, 2011
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the chief sponsor of the effort to defund administration-appointed advisers known as “czars,” reacted angrily Saturday to a signing statement from Obama saying he plans to keep them. In a statement emailed to The Hill, Scalise accused Obama of acting like a “dictator.”

“President Obama should know that it is the courts, not the executive branch, that has the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, especially considering that he agreed to this provision and signed the law himself,” Scalise said in an emailed statement.

“The President does not have the option of choosing which laws he will follow and which he will ignore,” he continued.

Scalise said that Obama’s backtracking on the czar issue will make future talks on spending and the budget more difficult.

“The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy,” he said.

“A bipartisan coalition in Congress agreed that President Obama was circumventing the constitution by appointing these czars without the scrutiny of Senate confirmation. The United States is not a kingdom run by a political dictator, and President Obama needs to quickly reverse course and abide by the law eliminating the czars that were part of the budget resolution agreed to by Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, and President Obama himself,” Scalise continued.

Scalise was the sponsor of HR 59, the Sunset All Czars act which had 53 cosponsors.
Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office is not surprised Obama found a way to circumvent Congress, according to a staffer.

“It’s not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these ‘Czars’ is objecting to eliminating them,” Michael Steel, spokesman for Boehner said.
The spending bill signed by Obama on Friday contained a provision defunding four administartion advisers knowns as the healthcare, auto, clmate change and urban affairs czars.

http://patdollard.com/2011/04/scalise-says-obama-violates-constitution-over-czars/

 

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012
As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.

Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements

After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of theHuman Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States.

http://www.infowars.com/president-o...ave-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/

 

I'm puzzled as to why the question regarding the First Amendment would even be raised. Of course it's acceptable under the First Amendment. As for being offensive, it is. But not because of the subject matter. It's because in terms of art it reeks. In McNaughton we seem to have the Thomas Kinkaid of RW propaganda.

 

Here is a picture that Obama likes.
[/quote]

 

I've been photographed outside churches before. In your mind does it follow that I must believe in the cr*p they're shoveling inside? And BTW it looks to me like this thing is shopped. Something you picked up off Breitbart's site?

 

Well, I read everything in this thread and couldn't find the comment that first came to mind when I read the OP. My comment isn't whether or not this is offensive but rather what does the Constitution have to do with Socialism, Capitalism, or any other economic "ism" system? None of them are even mentioned in the Constitution so it seems to me that McNaughton missed the mark completely. And as far as it being controversial..... meh!

 

Never heard of Breitbart till I saw his name on this site. Do not watch much news so he was news to me here. Great site now that I have looked at it. Thanks, I owe you one Takiji so I thought you would appreciate this picture of Obama. This is obama after his third election to president. The majority of the world media ignored the two term law for after all it was obama.

 

You're obsessed with this anti-Muslim/Obama-is-the-Other stuff aren't you. Well it's harmless enough I suppose and it certainly seems to keep you occupied and probably out of trouble.

 

I know. It's about as fresh and radical as a Teabagger's placard only it's done in oil rather than in magic marker. And the Constitution is notably silent on economic theories and programs. You don't think that maybe they intended for us to figure things out as we went along do you? By the way, congratulations on being such an effective Muse.

 

Thank you for posting the picture again.

 

Hey no problem. I figure if they didn't have me to bounce their nonsense off of, they might actually be out in public spewing their nonsense. I am sort of a hero that way.

Speaking of being offensive, does anyone find this little bit of prose offensive?

I don't know if you've heard but Dick Cheney had a heart transplant this week. Everything was going fine but as it turns out the doctors are having problems with rejection. The odd thing is that in normal cases of organ transplant sometimes the transplanted organ is rejected by the recipient's immune system. However, in this case, it is the heart that is rejecting Cheney.